Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 8:39 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #190

ncmncm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We have seen that there was another problem only noticed because of the extra scrutiny. We have a saying in the software business: two is an impossible number.

That said, the Air France Airbus dive into the ocean was caused by an equally stupid design decision that should never have shipped. Pilot and copilot were applying opposite force on the joystick, and instead of a siren going off, it just averaged them. Have they even fixed that yet? It was in ever Airbus.

Post by SmellyGeekBoy » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 8:48 AM UTC

EngineerDude wrote: post #208

As a few posters mentioned, an interesting question is why the plane needs MCAS in the first place. I read somewhere that the max 8 got new engines which were bigger than engines on previous 737 series, and that makes the plane nose up. Any kid who ever made a model plane understands the idea of CG - if it pitches up you change something, maybe move the wings back. Is it possible that an industry leader shipped a pla…

Post by bitreality » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 8:55 AM UTC

ssss11 wrote: post #205

bitreality wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the way litigation works, corporations will never admit blame for anything, since it greatly increases their legal risk. It's unfortunate, but their responsibilities lie with their shareholders, not the people who lost their lives on their planes.

I’m appalled by this point of view. Perhaps this is a weakness of capitalism.. primary responsibility should be to those who perished, not the shareholders.

Post by scirocco » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:04 AM UTC

_sh wrote: post #175

ndespres wrote: post #55

I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem. He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with…

Indeed, the whole press release brings to mind a couple of points from "Engineering a Safer World" which, if you're interested in this stuff, I can't recommend enough[0]. In the section "Questioning the Foundations of Traditional Safety Engineering": Old Assumption Most accidents are caused by operator error. Rewarding safe behaviour and punishing unsafe behaviours will eliminate or reduce accidents significantly. Ne…

Post by onli » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:37 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #158

bitreality wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the way litigation works, corporations will never admit blame for anything, since it greatly increases their legal risk. It's unfortunate, but their responsibilities lie with their shareholders, not the people who lost their lives on their planes.

People may get angry about this fact, but it really is the simple reality of an executive's fiduciary obligations. Ideally you run the enterprise in a manner that keeps the discharge of fiduciary duties within your personal moral constraints, but if you're not careful enough, you end up in this guy's shoes. And that's why they pay him the big bucks, because of such risks. That said, it's also true that Boeing is in a…